Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ammon86 (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 18 December 2019 (→‎Church of Glory: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Caution
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page.
  • Please include links to pertinent page(s).
  • Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Grammeteo818 Sockpuppet questions

Can you please start the Sockpuppet investigations page / SPI of Grammeteo818 since you were the one who blocked the user first? Snyn7 (talk)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Hi, I noticed some users claimed I may be a sockmaster of Batbash or JoeZ451. Can I initiate a sockpuppet investigation of myself, and if I can, how can I do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who besides My very best wishes is accusing you? You can respond at the SPI if you wish, although that kind of back-and-forth is usually unproductive. You cannot request an investigation of yourself, though. "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." (WP:CHK).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if there is a connection, but someone may want to frame you (I don't think MBLV is trying to do this, but maybe someone else has created a sock to make a connection, perhaps just to throw more chaos into this). There is a new account which was discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoganTheWatermelon/Archive which someone observed may look like someone's attempt to suggest I am socking (a lot of their edits are effectively copying my votes at AfDs with virtually the same rationale). Coincidence? Shrug.
Anyway, I came here to ask Bbb23 about 1) the usefulness of behavioral analysis. In recent SPIs I was involved in it didn't seem to matter; and checkusers don't seem to even comment on whether it is useful or not, it seems simply ignored, with comments limited to 'different IP/proxy=inconclusive'. And if so, 2) what recourse is there when new account that looks behavioraly like an old one to several users use proxies? Are they immune to SPI, despite behavioral evidence? What behavioral evidence is sufficient, outside of the sock plainly saying they are a sock of an old account? And why aren't the proxies they use blocked? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral evidence is mandatory at SPI. The analysis of it vis-a-vis technical evidence varies from report to report, and I cannot give you a one-size-fits-all answer. Proxies are not always blocked; that too varies based on the proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only replied with comments to the ping by Piotrus on SPI. This is probably Batbash. If I wanted to submit an SPI request about any user, I would do it. Not at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you also accused Paul of violating policy. If you're not prepared to follow through on that, you shouldn't have done so: it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I clarified my statement on SPI. I do not accuse Paul of violating the policy, and my comments are mostly related to the Joe (the SPI subject) who I think coordinate his activity with editing by Paul; all my comments were made in proper place and supported by diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed comment, but due to some RL problems I cannot visit Wikipedia too frequently. Since the SPI case is already closed, the only place where I can comment is your talk page.

I am somewhat puzzled by MVBW's statements, and I would like to hear your opinion about that, because it seem you are more familiar with the SPI procedure. In his original post at the SPI page, MVBW:

  1. Mentions my name in a context of sock/meatpuppetry;
  2. Compares wording used by me and a suspected sockpuppet;
  3. Compares my and the suspected sockpuppet's editing schedule;
  4. Falsely claims that I was acting as a defender of a blocked sockpuppet (actually, being unfamiliar with sockpuppet blocking procedures, I was curious why the message on the Batbash's page contains no references to their master, for I believed admins can block a sock only after the master has been identified);
  5. Claims that there was definitely coordination between the suspected sock and somebody else, and it is clear from the context that he implied coordination with me. Since no evidences of on-Wiki coordination has been presented, I assume he implies that I am engaged in some off-Wiki coordination.

In connection to that, I would be grateful if you explained me the following:

  1. When two editor's behavioral similarities are being discussed in a context of an SPI, isn't in by itself an accusation of possible sock/meatpuppetry?
  2. If MVBW does not accuse me of anything (as he claimed in his later post), what was the reason to mention my name in a context of that SPI?

I am sincerely trying to understand if MVBW's actions can be explained assuming his good faith, but so far I cannot see how this and that posts could be logically reconciled.

In addition, I still cannot understand what does "coordinate his activity with editing by Paul" means: ""coordinate" implies some common activity, which is impossible without communication. Since no evidences of any on-Wiki coordination have been presented, doesn't this statement mean MVBW again accused me of off-Wiki coordinating with another user?

Thank you in advance for your comments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RealDinoFan92

Michael R. Licona's Birthday

Hi. Why did you revert my recent edit to Michael R. Licona's profile? How exactly was my contribution unsourced when I provided a link to his Facebook profile with proof of the relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be placed in the article, not in edit summaries, and, generally, Facebook is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't his personal Facebook page be sufficient evidence of his birthday? How is that any less reliable than if he were to have said information published on his official website or some other source? If anything, it the former ought to be more trustworthy, as he personally operates his own Facebook page. Can you please incorporate said reference into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accopulocrat

Hello,

I recently received a tip that indeffed sockmaster User:Accopulocrat, who has been evading his ban with a series of IPs, may also be operating the Numerosis account. While I don't currently have the time to file a formal SPI, the behavioral similarities seemed striking enough to justify passing this tip along to you, considering your past experience with this case. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Liming - Article of Deletion

Lukas has since became popular and has a Google knowledge panel and has over 12k plays on his new album on Spotify. He has been interviewed and will be getting interviewed by another organization which will have the video posted on YouTube.

-- Do I have permission to post another article under his name? 

- Please answer as soon as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisbro3812712 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proving

Hello, I am (wrongfully this time) accussed of being/or having a puppet account. Can you please confirm that no wikipedia users are associated with any of the ips of my accounts? In total I have 3 accounts; TakisA1, El Vecto and Panageotean Graphics. Thank you in advance.(TakisA1 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(Panageotean Graphics (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(El Vecto (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@TakisA1: Please answer the following: (1) a diff or diffs of the accusation of your having a sock puppet, (2) why you need three accounts, and (3) why you have come to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I donot understand what you mean by diff. If you mean evidence, because I used a puppet before, I am accussed of being related with a puppet master (User:Vlantimir) because an account of him reverted a change I made in the file of the coats of arms of Greece (2) The one was a puppet I created and I regret (it's now blocked) and the other is for me to upload pictures with a better name (3) I came to your talk page because I read you have the capacity to prove if two accounts are or are not related. I think they accuse me of being/having a puppet of Vlantmir and User:Bobbynihi (TakisA1 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Vlantmir and Bobbynihi have never edited at en.wiki. I assume you're talking about accusations at el.wiki. I have nothing to do with other projects. You'll have to deal with this at el.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then sorry, I though your abilities were universal.(TakisA1 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Simmerdon3448

I feel that Simmerdon3448 should also have been blocked on WP:CIR and WP:IDHT grounds, as he has repeatedly demonstrated a failure or refusal to understand Wikipedia policy, as shown here. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 23:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnknownAssassin1819

Thanks. I was tempted but unsure. Guy (help!) 23:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was easier for me because I had the advantage of a more distant perspective, having never even heard of this user until the discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations/Alialavi4000

Hi there. I reported Alialavi4000 as sockpuppeteer of the banned account Survivingparadise. You wrote in response "Waste of time. Closing." Could you please explain why you dismissed this report and why you felt it was a waste of time? I was careful to follow the policies as laid out by Wikipedia and to provide evidence, including four incidents of identical or near-identical edits from both accounts to the same page. I was genuinely surprised by your response and would like to learn so that I can be a more effective editor in the future. Thank you. -Alexanderj (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The master hasn't edited in over a year and a half, and the puppet was blocked nine years ago. We will not initiate an investigation into such old disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption Block

I don't mean to question your judgement, and I know there's a history here with 2604:6000:130E:49B0:0:0:0:0/64 that I'm not fully familiar with from a quick glance at the block log. That said escalating directly from one week to three months seems a little harsh, considering the apology on the talk page and the promise to stop adding the offending link. I am sure an unblock will come if this IP promises to be good in a well written request, but in general blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive, thanks for your consideration. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piggoos

Hey 3B, I saw your blocking of Piggoos as a sock of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Any chance that TabahiRoy could be related? I've seen them intersect with SKS, like at Yehh Jadu Hai Jinn Ka!, where I see intersections with Momrockzz, a SKS sock. But of course they could also be someone like Dimpletisha or Diva166 or anybody else. They're all doing a great job of confusing the hell out of me. I will say that TabahiRoy has a stank on them, though. Ten day old account, making major changes, being bossy about stuff that a noob wouldn't know. ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confused, you can imagine how I feel. :-)  Confirmed to Dimpletisha.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that block on the paid AfD voter! It is really a relentless promotional effort. It's one of those cases where the article is borderline notability, but if kept will almost certainly be promotional given the efforts. Also, Apristen would appear to be a sock as well if you take into account the statement on User:Iexeru's unblock request. But that requires a minute of off-wiki research.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with part of your SPI

Sorry to disturb you and thank you for detecting and blocking the socks that you did. Re. this investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SamuelBurckhalter#14_December_2019: you determined that Martin Kempf is not related to the other sock accounts. I believe this must be on IP evidence alone. Perhaps the sock master was on vacation or otherwise editing from another location/ip zone, when logged into that account. But I am not convinced you adequately considered the behavioural evidence. Can you check the strange way he formats his signature, just like all the other sock accounts that you confirmed as sock accounts. I don’t think I have ever seen on here someone who uses the four tildes and then manually types their username beside the wiki generated signature. Can I ask you to carefully check the four listed sock accounts about a quarter of the way down my evidence (3 of which you confirmed) and check each diff to see the unique way they format their signature on talk pages. I fear the sock master will likely resume using this account knowing now that it has been ‘confirmed’ as unrelated. I am convinced you are wrong on this finding. Sorry to trouble you with this, I know and appreciate your volunteer time in this matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Martin Kempf was on a proxy and was why he showed up as unrelated but it is the same person, I am sure from unique behavioural evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek, CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. WP:DUCK blocs are not a CU function, you can ask at WP:ANI. Guy (help!) 01:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the ANI suggestion Guy. Bbb23 is an administrator and could, in theory, perform a WP:DUCK block, so what I will do is give Bbb23 the time to consider the above before I consider taking it to ANI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not block accounts based on behavior when the technical evidence against the block is as compelling as this one. Martin Kempf was editing from a legitimate ISP and from a different continent from the others. If an administrator wants to block them anyway, that's their prerogative, but at a minimum I would strenuously object to the user being tagged as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply but I am still unconvinced. Not only is the incredibly unusual signature the same between confirmed socks and Martin Kempf, but look at this: Martin Kempf writes I totally agree with Leobenite... and then about two hours later QueerWordGirl, a confirmed sock, writes: Leobenite I totally support.... They write and use words the same way as well as in the same context and within two hours of each other, they even sign their sigs in same very bizarre way.. And in both those diffs you can see the signing with the four tildes and manually typing their username after the four tildes generated signature. I respect your judgement that the ISP is on a different continent but I am not convinced by your assertion it is a legitimate ISP IP address. The behavioural evidence has me convinced it is an undetected proxy, especially as your own investigation detected at least one proxy IP used by a sockmaster during this investigation. To be honest I would feel uncomfortable going to ANI and asking an admin to disagree with you. Does this additional behavioural evidence that I have just discovered reach a more compelling level than the compelling IP evidence? If you can find me examples where editors plural manually type their username after the four tildes on the same article talk page within hours and days of each other - heck even within years of each other, with exact the same disruptive fringe POV pushing on the same article then maybe I could trust your IP based conclusions more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And on the 2nd of four edits Martin Kempf knows how to ping an editor. No newbie learns wiki codes that quickly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek, Bbb23 follows CheckUser policy. If the other accounts qualify for WP:DUCK blocks, WP:ANI is over yonder. Guy (help!) 11:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough I don’t want Bbb23 to violate any policy but I do think as a checkuser they should consider if they can determine if that IP is perhaps an undiscovered proxy for future checkusers and take the appropriate actions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmallBigPeile - sandbox

Hello there. I am just writing to inquire as to why what I had written in my sandbox was deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmallBigPeile/sandbox). I was wondering if it could possibly be restored as it is supposed to be my final project for an English class and the plan was to be a possible inclusion in the encyclopedia. If this is about the image 'Barabas - Kean' that was uploaded, it was no longer part of my sandbox. I made sure that all of the images that were part of it fulfilled the proper copyright regulations. Thank you for your time. I really need a quick response. SmallBigPeile (talk)(talk) 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallBigPeile (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bbb, I think that sandbox should just simply be moved to Barabas (character). I haven't looked at all of it, and it needs some work, but it strikes me as a decent and good-faith attempt to write up a significant character. (Surely you've read all the Marlowe plays?) There's an old article under the redirect Barabas the Jew, but that name is needlessly racist. I'll be happy to help clean it up if it goes live; there might be a DYK in it, depending on the quality. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, the person who wrote this draft article in his sandbox is a student of mine in a course I am teaching at the University of Pennsylvania. In their sandboxes, students are writing draft articles for possible later inclusion in Wikipedia, and also as a writing exercise. Can you please restore this user's sandbox. I was under the impression that a sandbox is for practicing Wikipedia article-writing and hence this is the proper place for him to draft this potential article. It needs to be restored asap so his project can be assessed. Thank you. User:zlesser —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks -- can you explain a bit more about why you deleted the sandbox in the first place? This is an assignment I do with students with some regularity, and I want to be sure to avoid this in the future. Was it just an error or is there something I should do differently next time to make sure no one's sandbox gets removed? User:zlesser —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best for students to identify themselves on their userpages so administrators and other editors understand why all they're doing is editing their sandbox. I have no way of telling, and there are non-student users who do nothing but play around in their sandbox and never contribute anything to Wikipedia. In this instance, it started with User:Chiggibe/sandbox (whom I now assume is another student) who had been doing nothing but editing their sandbox since September 11 (three months). I deleted it (the user has since restored it), but then I also noticed that Chiggibe edited SmallBigPeile's sandbox, so I deleted that one as well. There's nothing wrong with students editing each other's sandboxes, but, again, I had no idea they were students.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bbb. User:zlesser, unfortunately I have seen many examples of students who just cannot be identified one way or another as students, and frequently that leads to misinterpretations and problems. Bbb signaled that one student edited another sandbox: now that we know what was going on, we understand, but very frequently when we see groups of brand-new accounts editing the same thing, sometimes in ways that go against policies and guidelines, we think "ah, sock puppetry".

    The best thing to do, IMO, is to always communicate with Wikipedia:School and university projects (which also has a variety of tools for you and your students). User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) knows all about it. And I think it's incredibly important that students identify themselves as students--on their user page, on their talk page, and maybe in an edit summary (so that it shows up in their contribution history, which is often the first and sometimes the last thing others look at). We have templates for that--see User:PeterYatesVT, or you could put Template:Welcome student on the talk page of all your students the moment they get their account. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok thanks, that all makes sense. For next time I will do that. For now (the next few weeks) you can see a list of all students in this class in my own sandbox. User:zlesser

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlocs/Archive

So I guess Jlocs and Qzxv5 are not the same person? Did you CheckUser it? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Is a change required once partial block is deployed? The current statement is currently technically incorrect - users can be partially blocked in MediaWiki software, though it is not enabled here.--GZWDer (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop changing policy without discussion. I apologize, though, for reverting you without an explanation. It was a misclick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bothiman

Hey there. Jimlefs was an easy to spot sock of Bothiman and has been blocked. Any more out there? I think I'm just going to go heavy and hammer his favourite articles shut with Extended Confirmation protection for like a year or something. That should keep them dry from fandrool for a while anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winkowside seems like a potential candidate on account of how they've selectively interpreted a reference to increase a Vijay film's gross from ~300 crore to ~390. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gm110m

Hello Bbb23. I just realized that you've checkuser-blocked User:Gm110m. Can you please explain the case a little bit? This is because Gm110m is an active contributor to Persian Wikipedia, and we'll need to take action if there has been an abuse there. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 21:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


User:Postaire

I do not understand why you deleted his user page. He was not misusing WP as a web host, but trying to write an article draft, and as a new user picked the wrong place to do it, not knowing he should have done it on auser subpage or at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category created by blocked sock

Hey Bbb23, I was using STiki and came across this change made to The Absent One (2014 film). I looked it over, and while technically the film does seem to involve a false accusation of rape, I was curious why the category this user added existed at all. I found that the user created the category and went to town adding the category to various articles, and then you blocked them as a CU confirmed sock not long after. So I reverted the edit. Since you blocked the user, I was wondering: should this category be deleted and removed from all the articles he/she added it to? It doesn't seem like a useful category to me. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as the timing is not right. You can nominate it for a deletion discussion, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done so, thank you for the advice! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Could you please tell me what happened here? It's the first time that I see something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:SerVasi_reported_by_User:Sadko_(Result:_) ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one

I know we don't do fishing expeditions or unmasking of IPs, but I am disturbed by a series of edits at talk:circumcision which seem to me to fall into the harassment / outing category. 193.175.48.157, 79.219.94.75, 79.219.94.75, Guarapiranga. I suspect that Guarapiranga is not editing from Germany (where the IPs geolocate) and is simply being a dick, but if the IPs are linked to this account then the 24h block is probably inadequate. I'd value your thoughts on this. Guy (help!) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There's also 2003:E8:5F15:9216:9925:462F:29B6:C0D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). My hunch is that these are one or more German anti-circumcision activists, quite possibly socks of the many banned activists we've had at this article. I think Guarapiranga is altogether another kettle of fish. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jlocs/Archive 2

Did you ever check those in the first place? Or you just closing it without looking to it? Answer please. Flix11 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote why I closed it: "Insufficient evidence". That's as much as you'll get in the way of an answer from me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apolgizes on my profile, being used as a social media/blog page.

I'm sorry that you had to delete my profile page, I didn't know, when I originally opened my 2nd account on November 23rd, replacing my original profile. Pichu8boy, until I found out that I didn't read the rules here: Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, as it's being similar to more social media, entertainment, and blog page, I wanted to apologize to you, and the website, and please don't block me. EGMinecraftCast (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We" IP

Bbb23, thanks for taking care of the "we" IP. He's been a pill for several months now, and doesn't seem to want to find something new to do. I can't figure why those few words are worth so much agita, but does no other editing. Happy holidays! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query re checkuserblock

Hi Bbb23, I noticed you made a checkuserblock of two editors, User:Ponni Concessao and User:Velanatti. While I fully believe that these are one and the same, I don't really understand the block. We have the first editor creating an article about themselves (or about the username they picked), which gets A7 deleted (I haven't seen that version, so I can't judge whether A7 was applicable or not). That editor ceased editing on 8 December (right?), and restarted under a new name the 17th. Being a newbie, they probably weren't even aware that this is not really encouraged, but being successive accounts, with the first one not blocked or sanctioned, is allowed. So, unless there is another account involved (which seems unlikely, as the first has the text "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Velanatti"), I think this checkuser block is not policy compliant and very WP:BITE, just like the deletions (certainly the second). I have discussed the deletion at RHaworth, but the block is yours. Fram (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hi Bbb23, I sent you an email about this recent SPI. Did you receive it? Alex-h (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have nothing to say about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN discussion

I started a discussion at WP:AN#How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident? about edits and actions by you and others. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Removing the added text which does not make sense to me or appears to be vandalism - this is something I am not part of but I believe you did the right thing there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Glory

I've recently discovered that you've deleted Church of Glory article - could you please explain what were the reasons? I disagree with A7 - The article was about a Christian denomination officially registered in Poland, similar to eg. Baptist Union of Poland or Pentecostal Church in Poland. Also There is an article in Polish Wikipedia about the same subject, which exists at Wikipedia since 2010 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bci%C3%B3%C5%82_Chwa%C5%82y). If necessary, more references / secondary sources can be provided to the article. Also, if you could please provide examples of G11 in the deleted article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=931427612"